Today is the day that the Supreme Court will be looking intowhether or not a "cocktail" combination used in lethal injections constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Brief for the petitioner

Respondent's brief


Questions for debate:

1.)Does the 8th amendment to the constitution prohibit the carrying out a method of exeuction that creates an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering as opposed to only a substantial risk of wanton infliction of pain?

2.)Does the continued use of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, individually or together, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th amendment because lethal injection can be carried out using other chemicals?

1.)Does the 8th amendment to the constitution prohibit the carrying out a method of exeuction that creates an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering as opposed to only a substantial risk of wanton infliction of pain?

If the process is known to create an unnecessary risk of extreme pain and suffering, then yes, I believe it does.

2.)Does the continued use of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, individually or together, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th amendment because lethal injection can be carried out using other chemicals?

Well, the combination used to be used on animals to put them down. That was stopped and is, in fact, outlawed in Kentucky (the state of origin for this case) because it is considered inhumane. I think that's a pretty good indication.

Sometimes potassium chloride is used - if the dose of the first drug is not right, the prisoner feels like all of his veins are on fire... excruciatingly painful.

Where potassium chloride is not used, if the does of the first drug is not right, the second drug causes the prisoner to experience suffocation. One of the reasons the gas chamber is no longer used is these states is because suffocation was considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Overdosing on sodium thiopental is the best, but not the prettiest solution. There may be twitching. But I don't think that the state's right not to a dignified execution outweighs the prisoners right not to die an excruciatingly painful death.

The current process is a three drug combination. The first anesthestizes the criminal so he feels no pain, the second paralyzes him so he doesn't move when the third drug kills him.

The argument here, as I understand it, is that the first drug--the anesthetic--could potentially be administered improperly (wrong dosage, wrong timing) and thus not numb the convict to the pain of the third drug or the suffocation feeling of the second.

It does seem odd that they don't use an oral anesthetic (ala what they do prior to surgery) and then inject the lethal dose. Cost might be slightly higher with the need for an anethesiologist, but cost shouldn't be a factor here.

I do see some real problems with the procedures and staffing and training issues in this area, but those aren't the areas being addressed with this suit. With proper training or staffing, none of the issues raised here would even come into play (for example, if an anathesiologist were present to ensure the convict is properly anesthetized).

I do not know of an oral anesthetic which is comparable to an intravenous anesthetic for predictability and effectiveness. Hence, I do not think going to an oral medication would be a step in the right direction.

What do they give patients before heart surgery? I thought it was inhaled (which is what I meant by "oral"). Maybe it isn't (maybe propofol). We should put the convict to sleep, then put him to death.

1.) Yes, the amendment is in existence to protect against cruel and unsusual punishment. If probable cause is good enough to merit a warrant, the slightest possibility of pain and suffering should cause the immediate redressing of the current system of execution. We have no survivors from the procedure, naturally, so it is really impossible for us to know. The real heart of the matter is why did this case even reach the Supreme Court, when, as it has been stated, states could change their methodology and avoid the whole mess.

2.) Yes and no, there is no measured study of the effects of the drug combination other than to say that it does eventually lead to death. It is impossible to determine the degree and/or severity of pain inflicted by the combination and the lack of certainty is reason enough to redress the system.

Actually, the 8th amendment says nothing about punishment being free of pain and in no way says that "the slightest possibility of pain and suffering should cause the immediate redressing of the current system." Quite the contrary. The 8th outlaws "cruel and unusual punishment" not pain. The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded exactly that in this case--some pain may be involved when putting an inmate to death.

Yes, but drawing that distinction is sometimes a very tricky thing for the higher courts to interpret. Harm in any way has been largely classified as "cruel and unusual" in the sense that there are proven methods that would neutralize any risk of pain and invalidate the entire case. The issue was decided in '72's Furman v. Georgia when the Justices ruled that the entire practice of lethal injection was itself cruel and unusual. Even though the Court reversed itself four years later, the groundwork was still in place for states to seek more humane ways to execute convicted criminals. So the only answer to the amendement protecting against lethal injection is perhaps. The historical precedent however brief proved the case can be made as such, but only the Supreme Court knows at this point in time.

Amlord, inhalation would be an alternative anesthetic which is predictable. Inhalation alone could be administered by a mask which makes it problem with an uncooperative patient. Inhalation agents do have a smell though there may be some newer ones available which do not.

Propofol is an injectable intravenous anesthetic which is about the best for predictability. It creates a very short period of unconsciousness of around 5 to 10 minutes. If you miss a vein, it does not cause much discomfort or other bad side effects.

Using the compounds or salts which stop the heart need to be given intravenously or intracardiac. All of these will cause pain unless the patient is under anesthetic or otherwise compromised ( debilitated, etc. ).

With Propofol you go from being conscious to unconscious within 5 to 10 seconds. Inhalation agents alone can take minutes.